and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Show Tags

13 Oct 2010, 17:54

7

This post receivedKUDOS

16

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

43%(02:49) correct
57%(02:10) wrong based on 814 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. However, since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations. b. In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS. c. Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area. d. In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994. e. The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.

Show Tags

Since this questions seems to have confused people, let's try to break it down.

Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. However, since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.b. In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.c. Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area.d. In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.e. The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.

Assumption question: Find the conclusion. Find out which answer option is essential for the condition to be true.

Premises:-Only radios with RDS feature can receive programs of Radio stations with RDS technology -Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. - the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994

Conclusion:the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

Even though new RDS radio stations have been set up, since the number of radios with RDS feature is same in 1996 as in 1994, the author is concluding that the same number of people are receiving RDS programs.

a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

What if the new RDS radio stations were set in areas which did not receive RDS programs before.. (say, if that particular frequency was not available in remote areas but when new radio stations were set, these areas starting receiving RDS prgrams.) There might be people in these areas who already had RDS equipped radio. These people would have started receiving RDS programs (e.g. Initially FM had limited reach and though many radios had FM capability, they could not receive it. After FM became common, even though people didn't buy new radios, more people started receiving FM) So for his conclusion to be true, the author is assuming that RDS radio stations that began after 1994 did not broadcast to people who were unreachable previously. Hence answer A.

Show Tags

13 Oct 2010, 21:08

1

This post receivedKUDOS

I believe D is straight no ! In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS - this means the group it is considering is wrong / unrepresentative. It is imperative to have a correct receiver. That is the assumption for the things to work.

Premise : Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive.

A is answer !

amit2k9 wrote:

By POE A and D prevail.

Using Negation -

D : In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS received any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

helps to explain why the RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same. Hence nullified as it should have wakened the conclusion "the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly", but it dosen't.

Show Tags

09 Dec 2010, 14:13

1

This post receivedKUDOS

good question.....made me think

I missed the biggest clue for this one "since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994," the number stayed the same...Givenso basically lets take the case no one in Verland upgraded to RDS....so option A furthers this idea and says that few if any of RDS stations broadcast to other towns in hopes of an increase in RDS numbers also.....hence it stayed the same.

Show Tags

a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

Thanks for the explanation. I also have trouble understanding the wording in answer choice A.

Can "Few if any" equal to "there maybe some"?

If there are some RDS radio stations that did broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations, doesn't it weaken this answer choice?

There is a distinction between:Few - Very fewA few - SomeFew of my friends will go to the dance. (means very few or almost none of them will go)A few of my friends will go to the dance. (means some of my friends will go)

So I would consider 'Few if any' to mean 1 or 2 if any at all... That number may not have enough impact to make a difference.
_________________

Show Tags

a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

Thanks for the explanation. I also have trouble understanding the wording in answer choice A.

Can "Few if any" equal to "there maybe some"?

If there are some RDS radio stations that did broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations, doesn't it weaken this answer choice?

There is a distinction between:Few - Very fewA few - SomeFew of my friends will go to the dance. (means very few or almost none of them will go)A few of my friends will go to the dance. (means some of my friends will go)

So I would consider 'Few if any' to mean 1 or 2 if any at all... That number may not have enough impact to make a difference.

hi Karishma,I am confused between A and D. I chose D because i thought about the case that people who dont have the RDS-equipped radios still can have chance to listen to programs brocasted by RDS radio stations (maybe through other people's RDS equipped radios), the situation which weaken the conclusion that "the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly. "Please kindly explain where i made mistake. Many thanks

The question asks for an assumption. (i.e. what is necessarily true to make the conclusion true?)The gist of the argument is that since no. of radios is about the same, number of people receiving the RDS programming is also the same.

Option D - In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

- Even if people without RDS equipped radios could access RDS programming (say on neighbor's RDS radio) in 1996, they could have done the same in 1994 as well. They could have received RDS programs from existing radio stations (using neighbors radio). The number of people receiving the programming then may not have changed. So the argument could still hold even if option (D) is false. It is not necessary for it to be true for the argument to be true. Then option (D) is not an assumption.

(At Veritas, we call this method Assumption Negation Technique (ANT). Assumption is something which needs to be true for the conclusion to be true. That is why it is called an assumption. If an option is negated and the conclusion could still hold, it is not an assumption)

On the other hand, if we negate option (A) and say that some RDS radio stations started broadcasting in areas which were not previously reached by RDS but where people owned RDS equipped radios, then the number of people receiving RDS increases in 1996 and the conclusion does not hold. Hence option (A) is the assumption.
_________________

Show Tags

D : In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS received any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

helps to explain why the RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same. Hence nullified as it should have wakened the conclusion "the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly", but it dosen't.

Show Tags

14 Oct 2010, 05:15

nusmavrik wrote:

I believe D is straight no ! In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS - this means the group it is considering is wrong / unrepresentative. It is imperative to have a correct receiver. That is the assumption for the things to work.

Premise : Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive.

A is answer !

Thanks nusmavrik!, Do you agree that this is a 700-level question?If that's true, I was doing it well in the GMAT Prep !
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

Show Tags

09 Dec 2010, 13:08

A - there was no increase because pple in the area already had RDS equipped radio already, but did not have providers.Trick to assumption questions - try to link words and derive a assumption. Of course the negation technique is always there to back-up!

Show Tags

a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

Thanks for the explanation. I also have trouble understanding the wording in answer choice A.

Can "Few if any" equal to "there maybe some"?

If there are some RDS radio stations that did broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations, doesn't it weaken this answer choice?

There is a distinction between:Few - Very fewA few - SomeFew of my friends will go to the dance. (means very few or almost none of them will go)A few of my friends will go to the dance. (means some of my friends will go)

So I would consider 'Few if any' to mean 1 or 2 if any at all... That number may not have enough impact to make a difference.

hi Karishma,I am confused between A and D. I chose D because i thought about the case that people who dont have the RDS-equipped radios still can have chance to listen to programs brocasted by RDS radio stations (maybe through other people's RDS equipped radios), the situation which weaken the conclusion that "the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly. "Please kindly explain where i made mistake. Many thanks
_________________

Consider giving me kudos if you find my explanations helpful so i can learn how to express ideas to people more understandable.

Show Tags

d. In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

I chose D because otherwise people could just get a programming and their radios will start receiving RDS, thus increasing the number of people getting the special program. That way, the entire argument breaks down.

Please tell me if there is a glitch in my reasoning.
_________________

Argument : If you love long trips, you love the GMAT.Conclusion : GMAT is long journey.

What does the author assume ?Assumption : A long journey is a long trip.

Show Tags

d. In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

I chose D because otherwise people could just get a programming and their radios will start receiving RDS, thus increasing the number of people getting the special program. That way, the entire argument breaks down.

Please tell me if there is a glitch in my reasoning.

I am sorry maddy2u but I am not very sure what you mean. If the radios are not equipped with RDS, how could they get RDS programming? Do you mean using someone else's radio? Then my explanation above may help. If you mean that they could kind of install a software that supports reception of RDS on their radios (just taking a shot here!) or something, they could have done the same in 1994. How do you prove that the number of people receiving RDS programming has changed from 1994 to 1996? Only if you do that can you break the argument.
_________________

Show Tags

09 Jan 2011, 21:31

VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:

MICKEYXITIN wrote:

VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:

The question asks for an assumption. (i.e. what is necessarily true to make the conclusion true?)The gist of the argument is that since no. of radios is about the same, number of people receiving the RDS programming is also the same.

Option D - In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

- Even if people without RDS equipped radios could access RDS programming (say on neighbor's RDS radio) in 1996, they could have done the same in 1994 as well. They could have received RDS programs from existing radio stations (using neighbors radio). The number of people receiving the programming then may not have changed. So the argument could still hold even if option (D) is false. It is not necessary for it to be true for the argument to be true. Then option (D) is not an assumption.

(At Veritas, we call this method Assumption Negation Technique (ANT). Assumption is something which needs to be true for the conclusion to be true. That is why it is called an assumption. If an option is negated and the conclusion could still hold, it is not an assumption)

On the other hand, if we negate option (A) and say that some RDS radio stations started broadcasting in areas which were not previously reached by RDS but where people owned RDS equipped radios, then the number of people receiving RDS increases in 1996 and the conclusion does not hold. Hence option (A) is the assumption.

Thank you very much Karishma. Your explanation is convincing. Now i understand why D is inccorect now. hope i can learn the way you reason to eliminate incorrect answers of other assumption questions should any chance ever rise.
_________________

Consider giving me kudos if you find my explanations helpful so i can learn how to express ideas to people more understandable.